4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Differences between smokers and nonsmokers in regional gray matter volumes and densities

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 77-84

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00610-3

关键词

magnetic resonance imaging; nicotine dependence; voxel-based morphometry; prefrontal cortex; anterior cingulate cortex; ventral striatum

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA015059, R01DA014093] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have demonstrated large-scale brain abnormalities in cigarette smokers, such as ventricular enlargement and atrophy. Converging lines of evidence point to functional differences between smokers and nonsmokers in specific brain regions, namely the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), ventral striatum, and thalamus. Using MRI, we examined these regions for differences in gray matter between smokers and nonsmokers. Metbods: Thirty-six otherwise bealthy adults (19 smokers and 17 nonsmoking control subjects) underwent three-dimensional Fourier-transform spoiled-gradient-recalled acquisition MRI of the brain. Both band-drawn regions of interest and the computer program voxel-based morphometry were used to assess group differences in regional gray matter volumes and densities, respectively. Results: Smokets hadsmallergray mattervolumes andlowergray matter densities than nonsmokers in the PFC bilaterally, along with smaller volumes in the left dorsal ACC and lower gray matter densities in the right cerebellum. Smokers also bad negative associations between pack-year smoking history and PFC gray matter densities. Conclusions: Smokers and nonsmokers differed in regional gray matter in brain areas previously linked with nicotine dependence. These findings might reflect effects of chronic smoking, predisposing traits that lead to smoking, or some combination of these factors. (C) 2004 Society of Biological Psychiatry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据